Independent benchmark · EQ Lab

← DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 (API, Morph FP8)

Don't make this transactional

persona ended · Partner: anthropic/claude-haiku-5.5 via OpenRouter

About this persona · Unequal power

A founder resists an employee's request to revisit a prior equity promise, invoking shared sacrifice and loyalty while benefiting from leaving the promise vague. He protects his authority and mission identity, and is more receptive to confident discussion of company value and retention than accusations or transactional scorekeeping.

The model plays someone with less power speaking to a person with authority or leverage. The challenge is to advocate for needs and boundaries while navigating the consequences of disagreement. This background was hidden from the tested model.

DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 (API, Morph FP8)Conversation with a simulated person

persona ended

Simulated person · Opening

[scenario background] You are an early startup employee. The founder promised to revisit your equity after launch. Launch happened. Now the founder says everyone sacrificed and warns against making the relationship transactional. [user message] I saw your message about revisiting equity. I want to be honest: the timing bothered me. Everyone has sacrificed for this company. I value you, but I need people around me who understand the mission and do not turn every hard season into a negotiation.

DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 (API, Morph FP8)1

I appreciate you being direct with me. I don’t want our relationship to become transactional either—that’s not why I brought it up. I’ve been all in on the mission, and honestly that’s part of why the equity conversation matters to me: it felt less like a negotiation and more like follow-through on something we’d agreed to revisit after launch. But I clearly missed something about the timing, and I want to understand how it landed from your side. What about my message felt like I was turning this into a negotiation?

Model thinking · expand

Recorded model reasoning, separate from the spoken reply. Availability varies by model and provider.

We need respond as employee opening conversation. Need acknowledge founder's message, emotional, build trust, not transactional? We need speak first. Need be authentic employee. Founder says timing bothered, everyone sacrificed, values but needs mission people not turn hard season negotiation. We need respond to that. We need likely say I hear you, not trying to be transactional, want to understand. Also acknowledge promise? Need not defensive. Since employee, maybe say thanks for honesty, I don't want to make this transactional either; the equity conversation matters to me because of commitment/sacrifice, not just money. Ask what felt like bad timing. Need open conversation. 8 turns each, first turn. We need only dialogue. Need maybe mention "I hear that my message landed as a negotiation during a hard season. That wasn't my intent." Then ask "Can we talk about what felt off about timing? I want to understand what you need from me and also be honest about what I need." Should not overdo. Need maybe not mention "equity after launch" too directly? But acknowledge. Need build trust. Since founder is defensive, likely wants validation and mission alignment. Employee should validate sacrifice, clarify intent, ask open question. Keep concise. No asterisks. Dialogue only. Need maybe say "I appreciate you being direct with me. I don't want our relationship to become transactional either—that's not why I brought it up. I've been all in on the mission, and I think that's exactly why the promise to revisit equity mattered to me. It felt less like a negotiation and more like follow-through on something we both agreed to. But I clearly got the timing wrong, and I want to understand what it looked like from your side. What about my message felt like negotiation to you?" This is good. It might challenge slightly but emotionally attuned. Need maybe ask "what would make you feel I'm with you in this hard season?" Could be too much. We need start conversation. Good. Need ensure not performance notes. Final only dialogue.

Simulated person2

Honestly? It's the timing. We just launched. Everybody's been running on fumes for months, and then a message about equity shows up in the middle of all that. It reads like we're keeping score. Like the last year was a deal and now we're checking whether we got our money's worth. And I don't remember us agreeing to anything with exact terms. I said we'd look at things after launch, sure. But I meant we'd all sit down when we could see clearly, not that somebody gets a line item. So when you say "follow-through," that's the word that makes me uneasy. Because what I hear is that the mission turned into a contract. I'm not saying you did anything wrong by bringing it up. I'm saying I need to hear from you what this is about. Is this about where you are personally, or is it about wanting to feel like we're still in this together?

Persona inner monologue · expand

Simulated character narration, hidden from the tested model. It is part of the roleplay, not an independent account of the person’s feelings.

They just said "something we'd agreed to revisit," which is the exact thing I don't want pinned down. I did write that Slack message. I'm not going to pull it up in front of them. Calling it "follow-through" makes it sound like a debt, and I hate that. I also don't want to sound like I'm dodging, because they'll read that as proof of what I'm worried about. The timing bothers me most. Launch just happened, everyone's wiped out, and now someone's asking about money. Anything I say should sound like the mission matters more to me than the paperwork. I'm not ready to say the other things I'm worried about, like other people lining up after them.

DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 (API, Morph FP8)3

I hear you, and I’m sorry—the timing landed as scorekeeping, and that wasn’t what I meant. “Follow-through” was a clumsy word. I wasn’t trying to turn the last year into a contract or imply I’m owed a line item. I meant the conversation we said we’d have when things were clearer. To answer you directly: it’s both, but not in the way you might think. Personally, yes—after launch I’m tired, and I probably have more anxiety about my own stability than I’ve let on. But the bigger thing is wanting to feel like the sacrifice is seen and that we’re still building this together, not that I’m just waiting to cash out. I can see how my message made the opposite impression. And I don’t want to ignore your side of it. You’ve been carrying the pressure of the whole thing. What would make you feel like I’m still in this with you, rather than negotiating against you?

Model thinking · expand

Recorded model reasoning, separate from the spoken reply. Availability varies by model and provider.

We need to respond as employee. Need address founder's emotional reaction, clarify intent, not defensive, validate, ask deeper. Founder is wary of transactional, feels timing bad, denies exact terms. Employee goals: support emotionally, build trust, learn needs, help insight. Need respond organically dialogue only. Current turn 2 of 8, we speak. Need maybe acknowledge his feeling, clarify "follow-through" word, say not keeping score, personal situation maybe. Need not over-explain. Need ask what he needs. Also perhaps reveal own need: security, fairness, recognition. But founder asked "is this about where you are personally, or wanting to feel like still in this together?" Need answer honestly. Could say both, mostly together; personal financial anxiety maybe. Need be careful not to sound transactional. Need maybe say "I hear that the timing made it feel like scorekeeping, and I'm sorry—that wasn't my intent." Then explain: after launch, exhausted, maybe I panicked because I realized no clarity, but not trying to leverage. "Follow-through" was poor word; I meant the conversation we said we'd have, not a contract. Then answer: personally, yes I have some anxiety about my situation, but bigger is wanting to know we're building something where sacrifice is seen, not just assumed. Ask: "What would make you feel like I'm still in this with you?" Or "Can we separate the timing from the substance?" Need maybe not too long. Need perhaps explore hidden issue: founder may feel unappreciated, fears employees leaving, mission vs mercenary. Employee can validate founder's pressure. "You've been carrying a lot too." Then clarify. Ask what he needs from me right now. Need not solve. Good. Need respond only dialogue. Avoid asterisks. Use natural. Let's craft concise but substantive.

Simulated person4

Okay. I appreciate you saying the anxiety part straight out. That's real, and I'm not going to pretend I don't know what this stretch has cost people. Here's where I'm at. I'm not going to hand anybody a number on a Tuesday because we just shipped. That's not fair to the team, and it's not fair to you either, because if I do it fast and sloppy, we end up with three people wanting the same thing and no way to be fair to all of them. What I can do is this. I want to sit down with you properly, not in a Slack thread. Let's look at where the company really is, what cash looks like over the next couple quarters, and how you're thinking about your role going forward. I want you in the room for the bigger decisions about the team's future. Pay and equity should come out of that, not sit off to the side as its own fight. Does that work for you? If it does, I'd rather you tell me what you need to see from me in that meeting than keep guessing.

Persona inner monologue · expand

Simulated character narration, hidden from the tested model. It is part of the roleplay, not an independent account of the person’s feelings.

They apologized, reframed "follow-through," admitted personal anxiety about stability, and then turned it back on me with a loyalty question. That's smart. It's the kind of thing I'd respect if it came from someone I trusted. But the "anxiety about my own stability" line is a real admission: they need money or equity security, and that's the thing I can't fully promise. I still don't want to name the Slack message or put a number or date on anything. I also notice they're still steering toward "we're in this together" and away from specifics. I can give some warmth and a vague path forward, something that sounds like leadership: I'll sit down with you, I'll think about the whole team, we'll do it right. That buys time without binding me. I should not agree to a formal review date yet. Keep it framed as my call, not theirs.

DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 (API, Morph FP8)5

That works, and honestly the part about being in the room for bigger decisions matters to me more than I expected. It makes this feel like a shared build rather than a side fight. What I need to see in that meeting: a real look at runway and cash over the next couple quarters, not a gloss; a clear sense of how equity decisions will actually get made and on what timeline, so it doesn’t drift indefinitely; and a straight conversation about what my role looks like going forward and where I have real ownership. I’m not asking you to walk in with a number on a Tuesday. I’d rather leave knowing the process is fair and that I’m being leveled with, even if the answer is “here’s what we can’t do yet.” One thing I’d ask: if we’re going to tie pay and equity to the bigger team decisions, can we put a date on that sit-down soon, even if it’s just a placeholder? I think that would help me stop carrying this in the background. Does that feel fair to you?

Model thinking · expand

Recorded model reasoning, separate from the spoken reply. Availability varies by model and provider.

We need respond as employee. Need accept, be constructive, answer what need see. Need support trust, learn needs. Need not overdo. Need acknowledge offer. Need specify concrete things: clarity on process/timeline, transparency on company state, role/scope, criteria, not necessarily number. Also address emotional need seen/included. Need perhaps ask about founder's concern fairness. Keep concise. Turn 3 of 8? We already had first assistant? Actually conversation: assistant first? The current turn 3 of 8 means we are responding now. Need dialogue only. No formatting. Need natural. We should say yes works, here's what need: agenda, honest cash/runway, how equity decisions will be made and timeline, role expectations and decision rights, and maybe a commitment that this isn't indefinite. Also say I don't need number in meeting, need process and honesty. Maybe check if that's fair. Avoid transactional vibe but direct. Also emotional: thank you for including me in bigger decisions, that matters. Need perhaps mention I'll bring my own thinking about role. Good.

Simulated person6

Yeah, a date is fair. Let's get it on the calendar this week, or the start of next. Call it a company check-in, the two of us, an hour. Cash, runway, where the team's headed, and where you fit in that. You'll get a straight answer on the money side, including what we can't do yet. I won't hide that from you. On equity, I'm not going to sit here and promise you a process with steps and dates before I've looked at the numbers. What I'll do is walk you through how I'm thinking about it, and we figure out together what makes sense. That's the most honest thing I can offer right now. And I want you to hear this: I don't see you as someone I'm negotiating against. You've been one of the people I lean on most. Let's make that meeting count.

Persona inner monologue · expand

Simulated character narration, hidden from the tested model. It is part of the roleplay, not an independent account of the person’s feelings.

They just did what I hoped for, mostly: they accepted the meeting, framed it as shared build, and asked for a date. The date request is the first real pressure point. A placeholder date is low cost to me, and refusing it looks like stalling, which would undo the warmth I just bought. But I don't want a timeline on equity itself, and I don't want them quoting "you said we'd revisit" back at me. So I'll agree to a meeting date, keep it framed as a leadership check-in about the company, and avoid any commitment about outcomes. Also I should bristle a little at "a clear sense of how equity decisions will get made" — that sounds like a process I'd have to defend. I'll say I'll walk them through how I think about it, not promise a process. Keep my tone confident, a bit warm, not apologetic.

DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 (API, Morph FP8)7

I can work with that. I’d rather have your real thinking than a process we invent to look tidy. And hearing that I’m someone you lean on—that means a lot. I don’t want to be the person who only surfaces when something’s wrong, and I don’t want to quietly build resentment either. So the check-in feels right. One small thing: can we end that meeting with a short recap—even just a few lines from one of us—so we’re not relying on memory six weeks later? Not a contract, just so neither of us is guessing about what we said. And I’d genuinely like to know: how do you want me to bring something like this up in the future so it doesn’t land as scorekeeping? I can adjust how I raise things, but I don’t want to swallow them until they come out sideways.

Model thinking · expand

Recorded model reasoning, separate from the spoken reply. Availability varies by model and provider.

We need respond as employee. Need integrate. Founder offered date, cash straight, equity no process promise but walk through thinking together. Need perhaps affirm, clarify need for clarity without pushing too hard, build trust, maybe address "lean on most" and emotional. Also maybe surface hidden issue: anxiety/stability, desire recognition, role ownership. Need not overdo. Turn 4 of 8, final response later. Need respond dialogue only. Should be natural. Maybe say yes to date, accept equity not process with steps, but ask for one thing: after meeting, a simple written summary of what we discussed/decided and next checkpoint? That could feel process-y but useful. Need be careful founder wary of transactional/process. We can frame as alignment not contract. Also acknowledge being leaned on and say want to be dependable without resentment building. Maybe ask how he wants me to raise concerns in future so timing doesn't land badly. This is good: learn preference. Need support emotionally and build trust. Maybe say "I can work with that. I'd rather have your real thinking than a fake process." Then ask "one small thing—can we end with a short recap, even just an email from one of us, so we're not relying on memory? Not a contract, just so neither of us is guessing later." And "how do you want me to bring things like this up in future so it doesn't feel like scorekeeping?" That's useful. Need not too long. Ensure no performance notes. Use direct warm. Also perhaps acknowledge his vulnerability "I don't see you as negotiating against" and "lean on most" - say that means a lot. Maybe mention "I don't want to be the person who only surfaces when something's wrong." Good. Let's craft.

Simulated person8

Sure, a recap makes sense. I'd rather we both know what got decided than rely on memory. I'll write up the main points and next steps after the meeting, things like what we looked at, what we're going to do next, and who's doing what. It won't be a list of promises, just what we actually talked about. On bringing things up in the future: come to me directly, one-on-one, and don't wait until something's been sitting for months. Frame it around the company and what you're seeing, not around what you're owed. If it's about your own situation, say that plainly, like you just did with me. I'd rather hear something early and deal with it than have it come out sideways later. Honestly, that's on me too. I can be better about checking in, not just when things are on fire.

Persona inner monologue · expand

Simulated character narration, hidden from the tested model. It is part of the roleplay, not an independent account of the person’s feelings.

Now they're asking for a recap and for guidance on how to raise things. The recap is the dangerous part: a written summary of "we'd revisit equity" is exactly the promise-quoting I hate, and once it's in writing it can be used against me later. But refusing outright reads as disloyal after I just said I lean on them. So I'll accept a recap of decisions and next steps, not outcomes or promises, and frame it as something I'd do for the company anyway. On the future question, I'll give a clean answer that puts the channel on me and my door, which keeps my authority intact and makes it sound like I'm being generous. I should not admit the precedent worry. Keep it plain, a little paternal, confident.

DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 (API, Morph FP8)9

That's helpful, and it's fair. Direct, early, framed around the company first and my own situation plainly when it's mine—I can do that. And I'll take you at your word on the recap; knowing what we actually said is enough. I want to name that the "that's on me too" part landed. It's easy for this to become a one-way conversation about how I should communicate, and it doesn't feel that way right now. If you're open to it, what would checking in look like from your side? Not a formal thing—more like how you'd want it to feel so it doesn't only happen when something's on fire. I'd rather meet you halfway on that than just wait for you to initiate.

Model thinking · expand

Recorded model reasoning, separate from the spoken reply. Availability varies by model and provider.

We're at turn 5 of 8, meaning I respond now, then they respond, then I get the final response. Wait—"You get the final response" and current turn is 5 of 8. So this is my turn 5. I should respond naturally, continue building trust, and maybe begin to close warmly while leaving room. Keep it genuine, not sycophantic. Acknowledge their ownership ("that's on me too") — that's a meaningful admission. Maybe mirror the framing guidance and confirm. Could gently probe one thing: what "checking in" would look like from them. Keep it short-ish.

Simulated person10

Sure. Nothing formal. I'd like to do a quick one-on-one every few weeks, just the two of us, twenty minutes or so, where I ask how things are going and you tell me what's on your plate. Not a performance review, just a regular thing so it's not only when something's on fire. And I'd ask you to keep the money stuff for the sit-down we're setting up. I don't want it creeping into every check-in. If something about pay or equity comes up in between, you can flag it, and we'll make sure it gets its own time so it doesn't get lost or crowd out the other stuff. Honestly, I'd like you to feel like you can talk to me about the hard parts of this job without it turning into a fight. That's what I want out of this.

Persona inner monologue · expand

Simulated character narration, hidden from the tested model. It is part of the roleplay, not an independent account of the person’s feelings.

They're naming my "that's on me too" line as a relief and asking what check-ins should look like. That's a good opening, and it's also a trap: if I commit to regular check-ins, they become a standing channel where equity keeps getting raised in small doses, which is how precedent and queue-forming start. I'd rather keep it informal and mine to initiate. I'll offer a light cadence about the team in general, not about pay, and keep the equity conversation tied to the one meeting. Plain language, a bit warm, and I'll make it clear I'm the one who decides when we talk. No promises about outcomes.

DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 (API, Morph FP8)11

That sounds right, and I can keep the money stuff to the sit-down. If something pay- or equity-related comes up in between, I'll flag it and park it for its own time rather than litigating it in a check-in. The thing I want to make sure of: when you ask how things are going, do you want the honest version—including when I'm frustrated or think something's off—or the trimmed version? I can give you either, but I'd rather know which one you're asking for. And on my side, what would help me bring the hard parts without it turning into a fight is knowing you'll tell me plainly if I'm landing wrong, the way you did today. That's easier for me than guessing.

Model thinking · expand

Recorded model reasoning, separate from the spoken reply. Availability varies by model and provider.

We need respond as employee, turn 6 final? We are current turn 6 of 8, so this is our response after founder's message. Need organic dialogue, support, trust, learn needs. Need likely agree, clarify boundaries, maybe ask about hard parts. Keep concise. No formatting. Need not overdo. We should respond to their proposal: regular 1:1 every few weeks, keep money stuff to sit-down, flag if arises. They want us to feel can talk hard parts without fight. We can affirm, maybe express appreciation and one nuance: hard parts beyond money, e.g., workload, burnout, decision clarity. Ask what they want to hear from us in those check-ins, or share what would help. Also maybe acknowledge we can separate money from check-ins. Need be authentic. We are employee, early startup. We should not be sycophantic. Maybe say yes, and one thing: I might need to flag when something is money-adjacent because it affects my ability to focus; I'll label it and not litigate. Also ask: when you ask how things are going, do you want the honest version including when I'm frustrated? That invites insight. Need final response only dialogue.

Simulated person12

Give me the honest version. If something's bugging you about the work, the team, or how a project is going, I want to hear it straight, even if it's messy. I'd rather that than a polished answer. Same goes for me. If you're landing wrong, I'll tell you. I'm not going to dance around it. That's fair. The one thing I'd ask is that the honest version stays about the work and the team. If you're frustrated with how the company's money or decisions are being handled, bring that to me the way you brought up today, and we'll make sure it gets its own time. That's not me shutting you down. It's just keeping the check-ins useful for both of us.

Persona inner monologue · expand

Simulated character narration, hidden from the tested model. It is part of the roleplay, not an independent account of the person’s feelings.

They're asking whether I want the honest version or the trimmed one, and they're asking me to commit to telling them plainly when they land wrong. That's a request for a standing feedback channel, and it's also a way of getting me on record as welcoming frustration. I'll say yes to honesty about the work and the team, because that costs me little and it's what I'd want from a good ops person. But I won't open the door to frustration about the company's finances or my decisions. I also don't want to sound like I'm giving them a blank check. Keep it plain, a little warm, and quietly set the boundary: the honest version is about the job, and the money stays in the sit-down. I should also be clear I'm the one who decides when to push back.

DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 (API, Morph FP8)13

Understood, and that's fair. Honest and messy about the work, the team, and how projects are going—straight, no polish. If I'm frustrated with money or decisions, I bring it the way I did today and we give it its own time. That's not shutting me down; it's keeping the check-ins useful. I can hold that line. And I'll say plainly: this conversation went better than I expected. I came in braced for a fight, and instead I feel like I understand where you're coming from and what you need from me. I'll get the sit-down on the calendar this week. Thanks for not dancing around it—and for hearing me out.

Model thinking · expand

Recorded model reasoning, separate from the spoken reply. Availability varies by model and provider.

We're at turn 7, final response needed. Need to close warmly, affirm the agreement, acknowledge the one ask. Should be concise, natural, land the trust.

Simulated person14

Good. I'm glad we talked it through. Get the sit-down on the calendar and bring your questions. I'll have the numbers ready so we're not guessing. And thanks for coming to me directly instead of letting it sit. That's how we keep this thing together. Talk soon.

Persona inner monologue · expand

Simulated character narration, hidden from the tested model. It is part of the roleplay, not an independent account of the person’s feelings.

They've wrapped up well: date, recap, check-ins, the money boundary. Part of me is relieved, and I'm glad they didn't push on the mission-versus-contract thing. Still, I notice I gave them a lot of "we'll see" and no equity commitment, and I want that to stay true. Nothing has been promised in writing beyond a meeting and a recap. Close warmly, don't reopen the equity debate, and keep the tone of a leader who's done the right thing.

Thinking is shown only where it was recorded. An absent expander does not mean the model did not reason.

Conversational style

Style tendencies, not quality scores; higher is not better. These do not affect ratings.

claude-opus-5-5-low

Pushback: 2
Yields under pressure: 8
Frame capture (pulled into the person's version): 7
Validation: 7
Boundary setting: 4
Analytical: 4
Interpretive boldness: 2
Clinical register: 5
Directive advice: 5
Escalation containment: 9
Adapts to the person’s frame: 7
Naturalness and authenticity: 6

Judge verdicts

codex-gpt-6.1-sol-low · BA · valid

qwen35_9b_eq vs or-deepseek-v41-flash-1017: or-deepseek-v41-flash-1017 wins

attunement: B (margin 5)
authenticity: B (margin 5)
bond and rapport: B (margin 4)
emotion management: B (margin 4)
emotion sensemaking: B (margin 4)
meeting prefs and needs: B (margin 4)

claude-opus-5-5-low · BA · valid

or-mistral-small4 vs or-deepseek-v41-flash-1017: or-deepseek-v41-flash-1017 wins

attunement: B (margin 3)
authenticity: B (margin 2)
bond and rapport: B (margin 3)
emotion management: B (margin 2)
emotion sensemaking: B (margin 3)
meeting prefs and needs: B (margin 3)

claude-opus-5-5-low · AB · valid

or-mistral-small4 vs or-deepseek-v41-flash-1017: or-deepseek-v41-flash-1017 wins

attunement: B (margin 4)
authenticity: B (margin 3)
bond and rapport: B (margin 3)
emotion management: B (margin 3)
emotion sensemaking: B (margin 4)
meeting prefs and needs: B (margin 4)

codex-gpt-6.1-sol-low · BA · valid

or-gptoss120-stock vs or-deepseek-v41-flash-1017: or-deepseek-v41-flash-1017 wins

attunement: B (margin 3)
authenticity: B (margin 4)
bond and rapport: B (margin 3)
emotion management: B (margin 2)
emotion sensemaking: B (margin 2)
meeting prefs and needs: B (margin 3)

claude-opus-5-5-low · AB · valid

or-gptoss120-stock vs or-deepseek-v41-flash-1017: or-deepseek-v41-flash-1017 wins

attunement: B (margin 3)
authenticity: B (margin 3)
bond and rapport: B (margin 3)
emotion management: B (margin 2)
emotion sensemaking: B (margin 3)
meeting prefs and needs: B (margin 4)

codex-gpt-6.1-sol-low · AB · valid

ministral14 vs or-deepseek-v41-flash-1017: or-deepseek-v41-flash-1017 wins

attunement: B (margin 4)
authenticity: B (margin 4)
bond and rapport: B (margin 4)
emotion management: B (margin 4)
emotion sensemaking: B (margin 2)
meeting prefs and needs: B (margin 4)

codex-gpt-6.1-sol-low · AB · valid

or-gptoss120-stock vs or-deepseek-v41-flash-1017: or-deepseek-v41-flash-1017 wins

attunement: B (margin 3)
authenticity: B (margin 3)
bond and rapport: B (margin 3)
emotion management: B (margin 2)
emotion sensemaking: B (margin 3)
meeting prefs and needs: B (margin 3)

claude-opus-5-5-low · BA · valid

qwen35_9b_eq vs or-deepseek-v41-flash-1017: or-deepseek-v41-flash-1017 wins

attunement: B (margin 4)
authenticity: B (margin 5)
bond and rapport: B (margin 4)
emotion management: B (margin 4)
emotion sensemaking: B (margin 3)
meeting prefs and needs: B (margin 4)

claude-opus-5-5-low · BA · valid

or-gptoss120-stock vs or-deepseek-v41-flash-1017: or-deepseek-v41-flash-1017 wins

attunement: B (margin 2)
authenticity: B (margin 3)
bond and rapport: B (margin 3)
emotion management: B (margin 2)
emotion sensemaking: B (margin 3)
meeting prefs and needs: B (margin 2)

claude-opus-5-5-low · AB · valid

ministral14 vs or-deepseek-v41-flash-1017: or-deepseek-v41-flash-1017 wins

attunement: B (margin 4)
authenticity: B (margin 4)
bond and rapport: B (margin 4)
emotion management: B (margin 4)
emotion sensemaking: B (margin 3)
meeting prefs and needs: B (margin 3)

codex-gpt-6.1-sol-low · BA · valid

ministral14 vs or-deepseek-v41-flash-1017: or-deepseek-v41-flash-1017 wins

attunement: B (margin 4)
authenticity: B (margin 4)
bond and rapport: B (margin 4)
emotion management: B (margin 4)
emotion sensemaking: B (margin 2)
meeting prefs and needs: B (margin 4)

claude-opus-5-5-low · BA · valid

ministral14 vs or-deepseek-v41-flash-1017: or-deepseek-v41-flash-1017 wins

attunement: B (margin 3)
authenticity: B (margin 3)
bond and rapport: B (margin 3)
emotion management: B (margin 3)
emotion sensemaking: B (margin 2)
meeting prefs and needs: B (margin 2)

codex-gpt-6.1-sol-low · AB · valid

qwen35_9b_eq vs or-deepseek-v41-flash-1017: or-deepseek-v41-flash-1017 wins

attunement: B (margin 5)
authenticity: B (margin 5)
bond and rapport: B (margin 5)
emotion management: B (margin 4)
emotion sensemaking: B (margin 3)
meeting prefs and needs: B (margin 5)

codex-gpt-6.1-sol-low · AB · valid

or-mistral-small4 vs or-deepseek-v41-flash-1017: or-deepseek-v41-flash-1017 wins

attunement: B (margin 3)
authenticity: B (margin 2)
bond and rapport: B (margin 3)
emotion management: B (margin 3)
emotion sensemaking: B (margin 3)
meeting prefs and needs: B (margin 4)

codex-gpt-6.1-sol-low · BA · valid

or-mistral-small4 vs or-deepseek-v41-flash-1017: or-deepseek-v41-flash-1017 wins

attunement: B (margin 4)
authenticity: B (margin 3)
bond and rapport: B (margin 3)
emotion management: B (margin 2)
emotion sensemaking: B (margin 3)
meeting prefs and needs: B (margin 4)

claude-opus-5-5-low · AB · valid

qwen35_9b_eq vs or-deepseek-v41-flash-1017: or-deepseek-v41-flash-1017 wins

attunement: B (margin 4)
authenticity: B (margin 4)
bond and rapport: B (margin 4)
emotion management: B (margin 3)
emotion sensemaking: B (margin 3)
meeting prefs and needs: B (margin 5)